This is essential viewing for anyone who wants to understand how gender ideology works in practice. First, Vanessa Feltz insults Andrew Gold for questioning preferred pronouns. He’s “fragile”, “flimsy” and “dainty”. She sarcastically portrays his objection as treating an “effortless task” as some terrible “trial and tribulation”. Then come the familiar progressive catchphrases: “be kind”, “be nice”. Gold is “horrid” and “nasty”. So that’s the starting point: berate, insult, shame. What Feltz refuses to engage with are the implications of what she’s saying. If a male rapist identifies as a woman, must everyone call him “she”? Are his crimes then recorded and discussed as the crimes of a woman? Her proposed solution is apparently to “just use their name”, as though never using pronouns again is some sort of reasonable compromise. When Gold points out that she’s the one being unpleasant, Feltz pivots. Suddenly we’re told that nothing has really changed since the 1990s and that all we’re witnessing is some phoney “culture war”. That is ludicrous. The insistence that “trans women are women”, including on the basis of self-identification, is precisely what helped bring us to this point. People have lost jobs, faced disciplinary action, been cancelled or felt compelled to issue grovelling apologies after expressing views about biological sex that would have been utterly unremarkable in the 1990s. Feltz should almost be thanked for demonstrating how the argument works. First come the insults: you’re nasty, unkind, fragile or bigoted. Then comes the “culture war” card. And when that doesn’t work, you’re told that nothing has really changed anyway and that the consequences you’ve watched unfold are somehow figments of your imagination. We see this pattern time and again. But perhaps the most disturbing part is that Feltz appears genuinely to believe what she’s saying. That’s what happens when politics becomes an ideological bubble: eventually, the world outside it becomes almost impossible to see.